HL Deb 30 October 1986 vol 481 cc785-6
Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have inquired into the causes of the escape from custody of Rifat Mehmet, who was serving a sentence of 18 years' imprisonment, and with what result.

Lord Beaverbrook

My Lords, this was obviously a very serious incident. Police and internal inquiries were instigated at once. They are continuing. Your Lordships may be assured that we will take appropriate action in the light of the inquiries.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that not particularly informative reply, may I ask him whether it was not a strange error of judgment, in view of this man's record, the nature of his offence and the knowledge of the character of his associates, to bring him from prison in order to take part in civil proceedings in a London court? Did it not occur to those responsible that this might be part of a plot to secure his release?

Lord Beaverbrook

My Lords, the prisoner's solicitor asked for Mehmet to attend the court for a case which concerned his access to his child, whom he wished to be allowed to be brought to the prison to see him. On humanitarian grounds and in the interests of justice, on balance it was considered right for him to be produced at court. I have received no evidence to suggest that these civil court proceedings were contrived for the purpose of setting up an escape attempt. However, we cannot be sure until the inquiries have been completed.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, if this was not contrived, was it not a very curious coincidence that his armed associates happened to be in the approaches to the court on the one particular day on which he was brought to it? Are we really being told this was pure chance?

Lord Beaverbrook

My Lords, when I used the word "contrived" I was talking about the instigation of the civil proceedings. I am not saying that we can rule out there being any collusion after the court proceedings had been set up.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, is it not a privilege of most of us to be so wise after the event? Was it wrong, considering the humanity that was behind this decision, to allow this man to attend custody proceedings which so much affected him? Even if this case proves to be one which did not deserve sympathy, ought one not to give credit to the Minister who did in fact sympathise on this occasion, and ought we to hope that his sympathy will not in future be removed from proper applicants?

Lord Beaverbrook

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. As I said, the decision was made on humanitarian grounds and, on balance, we believe it to have been the right decision.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, is my noble friend saying that custody proceedings in respect of a child are of much interest or significance to a man sentenced to 18 years in prison? Would not the child be grown up by the time he was released anyhow?

Lord Beaverbrook

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. The case was concerned with whether the child could visit the prisoner in prison, rather than who had custody of the child and who would bring up the child.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, the Minister, I am sure, will correct my ignorance, but is it right for us to be discussing this case if it is subject to a judicial inquiry, as I understood him to say?

Lord Beaverbrook

My Lords, I actually said that an internal inquiry was taking place.

Back to